A service, rather than a threat, to the credibility of science.

Marcel Kuntz argues that the cred­ ibility of science is under threat from postmodern thought and the field of science studies in particu­ lar [1]. However, we do not think even Kuntz could really accept his representa­ tion of science as a monolithic monopoly of truth, and his misrepresentation of sci­ ence studies muddies the waters rather than clarifies them. Kuntz writes that “[t]he rational, sci­ entific view of the world has been pain­ stakingly built over millennia to guarantee that research can have access to objective reality.” By using the word ‘guarantee’, he ignores the provisional character of scientific research. He ignores the fact that scientists have been wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future. His claim that “there is only one science, as defined by the application of the scientific method in an objective and unbiased manner” seems to ignore the diversity and variability in sci­ entific practice and infrastructure—a key strength of science. It also ignores scientific disagreements and the failure to replicate many scientific findings [2]. There are clearly other forms and sources of knowledge that matter [3]. Indeed, sci­ entists have learned how to use these productively—plant breeders collaborate with farmers and clinicians work with their patients. In such processes, they produce more useful plant varieties or more appro­ priate health care. Diverse forms of knowl­ edge are needed for risk assessment, which requires consideration not only of the amal­ gamation of the material characteristics of a technology, but also of the social, moral, political, economic and cultural practices and frames of reference that shape the use and impact of the technology. Contrary to Kuntz’s interpretation, to say that something is a “social construct” is not to say that it is unreal, and stating that there are multiple truths ‘out there’ does not mean that all of them have equal credibility. Postmodern nihilism or full­blown relativism, of the kind he warns against, is hard, perhaps impossible, to find [4]. Kuntz speaks of what he calls a ‘para­ llel science’, which seems to be science corrupted by certain influences or agendas such that its findings are predetermined, but is nonetheless published in the same journals and conducted at the same insti­ tutions as ‘normal’ science. He argues that anti­genetically modified organism (GMO) NGOs corrupt science by denying “scien­ tists the opportunity to discover and dem­ onstrate the objective truth about the safety of GMOs.” However, most studies on the institutional corruption of science point to a more powerful and problematic influ­ ence: biotech seed companies. For exam­ ple, according to ‘normal’ US corn­insect specialists, “no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions” in their field, as a direct result of interference from biotech companies [5]. This mirrors what we know from the food and pharmaceutical sectors, in which sci­ entific institutions providing knowledge used for regulatory purposes are heavily influenced by corporate interests [6,7]. So yes, there are interests at work in science, influencing or attempting to influence the outcomes of studies, but anti­GMO activists are hardly the only ones, or the most influential. By Kuntz’s logic, the only way to discern parallel science from normal science is to look at its outcomes, suggesting that scien­ tists who conclude that GMOs are safe must be corrupted by corporate interests, and scientists concluding that GMOs are unsafe must be corrupted by ‘green’ interests. This is obviously problematic at best. Here, sci­ ence studies might in fact help to point out where corrupting influences can be found and how they influence the construction and distribution of knowledge and facts. Kuntz contends that the postmodernist corruption of science has not “enhanced the public understanding of scientific pro­ cesses”, offering as evidence survey results indicating that people find it difficult to form an opinion about GMOs. He assumes that this failure to hold what he considers to be the obviously correct view must be due to public ignorance or misunderstanding [8]. The results of this survey can instead be read as evidence that people are taking the time and effort to reflect properly on a question that is complicated and interest­laden. As the issue is not nearly as one­sided as Kuntz suggests—a monolithic science having a monopoly of truth on GMOs—this does not mean that they have been duped, by postmodernists or anyone else. Yes, there are interests at work in sci­ ence. Rendering them visible through studying the inner workings of science, its modes of knowledge production and its interactions with the public and other social institutions is a service, rather than a threat, to the credibility of science as a reflective enterprise. Science is not mono­ lithic and scientists do not have a monopoly on, or an inherent right to, absolute cred­ ibility. Pointing this out does not constitute an assault on science.